Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Duluth 
Humanism - a personal perspective
David Yount, 1st Unitarian Church, Duluth, MN, 10/12/97 [revised 10/2007]
As our minister, Karen Gustufson, noted a few weeks ago, we will be focusing during this year [1997] on what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist (which we usually shorten to UU). Board members (which I am not) have been asked to present their own personal "faith journey" to the board, and then to the congregation during a Life Matters session. In addition, throughout this church year we will be looking in depth at some of the major themes that have shaped Unitarian Universalism. Because the philosophy of Humanism has played a major role in my religious and personal development, I was asked to speak to the humanist tradition in our denomination. Throughout the year, Karen and other members will be examining other aspects of the UU tradition.
It is a good idea, from time to time, to go back and re-examine the basic rhythms and harmonies which once inspired and thrilled you, but which may have become absorbed into that accepted background with which you live comfortably, until perhaps confronted with that question that strikes terror into the heart of Unitarian/Universalists: "So what is it that Unitarians believe, anyway?" I usually respond to such questions by referring to what I like to call, somewhat facetiously, the Unitarian "Trinity"; Unitarians believe in Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance. That is:
- The Freedom to seek your own personal religious meaning.
- The use of Reason in formulating your beliefs (both religious and non-religious beliefs).
- Tolerance for those who are at a different point in their religious (and life) development.
Since I don't normally spend a lot of time verbalizing what it means to be a UU, that response gives me time to get my thoughts together, and sometimes leads into some interesting discussions on what these words actually mean and why they are important. What I was asked to do today speaks to the 2nd person (if you will) of our UU Trinity; the use of Reason in formulating our religious beliefs. The formal name for that aspect, I believe, can best be represented by the term Humanism. There are many adjectives that have been applied to humanism, including Scientific, Secular, Naturalistic, Rational; even Religious or Ethical Humanism. But for today I will call it simply Humanism.
Like most UUs, I did not grow up Unitarian or Universalist. In fact, I don't remember ever hearing of either until I was an adult, married, and facing the prospect of raising our children as Lutherans, with all of its morbid theology. Fortunately Geiger and I found ourselves, in 1970, in a University town with a Unitarian fellowship, and for nearly a year we would go early to the Unitarian fellowship, then to the Lutheran church at 11:00, without any of our fellow Lutherans being the wiser. (Except for the minister, who was a closet UU.) After convincing ourselves that the UU belief system was right for us, we made a clean break and joined the fellowship.
Somewhere during that process of deciding to become a UU, and devouring all of the literature I could find on the denomination, I learned about the Humanist tradition in Unitarianism, through Julian Huxley's Religion without Revelation and other sources, including the American Humanist Association magazine The Humanist which I found in the public library. Phillip Wylie's Nature, Man and Woman also introduced me to the concept of paganism as a nature-based religion, and to Zen Buddhism, from Wylie's other books such as This is It, and Beat Zen. Fortunately, I returned to my senses before going too far down that path, and returned to humanism; which is what I should do now since this presentation is about Humanism, not my personal odyssey.
So what is it that Humanists believe, anyway? Does it differ from Unitarian Universalism, and if so, how?
The best way to begin to answer that question is to look inside the front page of your program, and in the Hymnal, where you will find the principles of Unitarian Universalism. Many of these are humanistic principles as well as UU principles; The inherent worth and dignity of every person. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations. Acceptance of one another ... [but probably not the rest of the sentence; encouragement of spiritual growth. Humanists tend to have an aversion to the word "spiritual" and "spirituality", due to its supernatural connotations. I can accept the word, at least if spirituality is defined as "a sense of wonder" or as "a personal (emotional) response to the mystery of the universe" as Chet Raymo does in his book Skeptics and True Believers, or as "the experience of meaning, connection and joy", as Tom Clark of the Center for Naturalism does; but I also expect others to be clear about what they mean by spirituality.] Other humanistic principles are; The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process... The goal of world community. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. And there are others, but those illustrate the point.
Then further down in the hymnbook there is a statement, under the heading THE LIVING TRADITION WE SHARE DRAWS FROM MANY SOURCES: Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit. This one is easier to say than it is to practice! For many UUs it seems to be much easier just to accept all sorts of far-out ideas, in the spirit of tolerance, than to use our reasoning and scientific knowledge to determine if they really make sense or not. Except, that is, in areas where there is a clear religious implication, like the Genesis Creation story, the Virgin Birth of Jesus and his Resurrection from the Dead, Heaven and Hell, which UUs overwhelmingly reject.
The fact that many of the UU principles are strongly humanistic in nature is of course no accident. Here is some history that I gleaned from the book "The Epic of Unitarianism", by David B. Parke. According to Parke; "During the 19th century Unitarianism underwent a great intellectual and spiritual ferment, embracing Unitarian Christianity, Transcendentalism, and Naturalism in rapid succession. But by the beginning of the 20th century Unitarianism had entered into what Parke calls a "contented slumber". This slumber, Parke writes, ended with the advent of religious humanism, which he calls "the most significant theological development of the new century". Incorporating the scientific and anti-supernaturalist currents of the day, humanism voiced them as "a new world religion for modern man" (or for modern people, as we would say today). Its first advocates were John H. Dietrich in Spokane, WA who joined the Unitarians after the Reformed Church had expelled him for heresy, and Curtis W. Reese in Des Moines, Iowa, a former Baptist. Dietrich and Reese began preaching humanism in 1913. Their message of man's uniqueness in an indifferent universe was enthusiastically received in the Midwest; but when the rumblings of humanism penetrated the slower-moving East, a generation-long "humanist-theist controversy" broke out in earnest.
Reese stimulated the debate with an address at Harvard in 1920, entitled "The Content of Present-Day Religious Liberalism". According to Reese, "the ancients bowed before the unknown; the modern man attempts to understand the unknown. Supernatural agencies and laws are giving way to natural modes and processes. With this must go much of the nomenclature and many of the forms of worship of the religions of the world."
John Dietrich, minister of the Unitarian Church in Minneapolis (1st Unitarian Society?), took up the debate, stimulated in part by the Scopes trial in 1926 (about the teaching of evolution in the public schools), which dramatized the issue of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Throughout the decade of the 1920s increasing numbers of Unitarians and Unitarian churches joined the humanist ranks. Julian Huxley published his book "Religion without Revelation" in 1927, which had a profound influence on these Unitarians and others. Then in 1933, a group including several Unitarian ministers got together and drafted what they called a Humanist Manifesto. It begins with the following declaration:
"The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. ... In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
"There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word ‘religion' with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of human living in the 20th century. ... Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievement, and his deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion."
The Manifesto includes the following statement:
"Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. ... The enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism...." and so on.
The final statement is "Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement."
One of the valid criticisms of this manifesto (in addition to its non-inclusive language) is that it might appear to be too arrogant, and that it doesn't acknowledge our dependence on nature. But for its time, it was a tremendous step forward. Among the 34 signers were a number of Unitarian ministers including John Dietrich and Curtis Reese, who I mentioned earlier, and Lester Mondale (older brother of former VP Walter Mondale). Lester Mondale, now in his 90s, is [or was in 1997 – he died in 2003 at age of 99] the only surviving signer of the Humanist Manifesto.
One distinguishing characteristic of Humanists is that they seem to like to issue these statements of belief. The Humanist Manifesto was developed during the Depression, and after the "War to End all Wars". Forty years later, in 1973, the passage of events prompted a new, more relevant statement. That's when I came in. When I joined the UUA and the AHA (American Humanist Association), the debate was in full swing. In contrast to the first Manifesto, the 2nd addressed not only the problems of religion and ethics, but also the pressing issues of civil liberties, equality, democracy, the survival of humankind, world economic growth, population and ecological control, war and peace, and the building of a world community. Humanist Manifesto II, as it was called, was signed by a larger group of people (114) including:
Khoren Arisian (currently [in 1997] minister, 1st Unitarian Society, Minneapolis
Isaac Asimov (author)
Lester Brown (currently president, World Watch Society)
Betty Friedan (Founder, N.O.W.)
Alan Guttmacher (former president, Planned Parenthood Fed. of America)
Lester Mondale (UU minister and brother of Walter Mondale)
Rabbi Sherwin Wine (Society for Humanistic Judaism)
Of course when you put your beliefs in writing, particularly in such a grandiose form as a "Manifesto", you set yourself up for attack. And the attacks came.
Tim LaHaye, in The Battle for the Mind (1980) writes: "Most people today do not realize what Humanism really is and how it is destroying our culture, families, country, and one day, the entire world. Most of the evils in the world today can be traced to Humanism, which has taken over our government, the UN, education, TV, and most of the other influential things of life. I believe there is yet time for us to defeat the Humanists and reverse the moral decline in our country that has us on a collision course with Sodom and Gomorrah."
Here is a satiric poem by Curt Sytsma, which expresses the same sentiments:
In every age, the bigot's rage
Requires another focus,
Another devil forced on stage
By hatred's hocus-pocus:
The devil used to be the Jew
And then it was the witches;
And then it was the Negroes who
were digging in the ditches.
The devil once was colored pink
And labeled communistic;
Now, all at once, in just a blink,
The devil's humanistic.
Of course the Humanists have been equally critical of established religions; usually with justification, but sometimes not, at least in my opinion. Around 1980, a group of humanists split off from the AHA and formed the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism [now the Council for Secular Humanism], largely because of concern over the identification of Humanism as a religion [and the fact that the AHA accepted tax-exempt status as a religious organization, which the Council did not]. They felt that this made Humanism vulnerable to the charge that, since Humanists claim evolution as one of their beliefs, teaching evolution in the schools constitutes teaching of a religious belief. This group wanted, among other things, to establish a journal (which they called Free Inquiry) "devoted to the sophisticated analysis of religious inconsistencies and their social consequences" (from the premier issue). The Council spun off a number of separate organizations, including the Committee for Scientific Examination of Claims of the Paranormal [now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry], and the journal "The Skeptical Inquirer", which recently [recent in 1997] featured a critique of so-called "alternative medicine". [I have been a member of the Council for Secular Humanism since its foundation.]
In the journal (Free Inquiry), they published a series of critical articles titled "Why I am not a _______", where the blank was Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Jew, etc. I'm sure we could all write such an essay, based on our own experiences. When I was gathering material for this presentation, I noticed a piece called "Why I am not a Unitarian-Universalist". Naturally, that caught my attention. Here are some excerpts from the essay, by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain, Humanist Society of Friends (from a sermon given from a Unitarian-Universalist pulpit in 1985 at the First Unitarian Church of Columbus, OH).
Larry Reyka expressed his misgivings about the UU movement as follows: "The combination of residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this denomination is to be found nowhere else. The hospitality to atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying saucers, pyramid power, and all manner of foolishness is amazing." Reyka adds, "You (UUs) do provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be without one otherwise. ... "However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no creed is, I believe, less than forthright. Agreeing to disagree is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society as a whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community dedicated to celebration and action as a community. Groups that stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive. ...
"The alliance of convenience between Residual Christians and Closet Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups. Neither theists nor atheists may act boldly or creatively on their convictions out of fear of offending the other. For Humanists, the result is a timid humanism that spends more time keeping peace with the god believers in the church than meeting their own needs as Humanists and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community." Harsh words, perhaps, but worth paying attention to, in my opinion.
Larry Reyka's solution to his problem with Unitarian Universalism was to resign from his membership in the UU church and call himself a FRIEND. A number of Humanist friends of mine in Duluth have taken a similar approach, either considering themselves Friends, or just staying away. One in particular, told me that he likes many things about the UU church but finds it too "spiritualistic" for comfort. There is a new group in Duluth, called the Lake Superior Freethinkers, which meets at 10:00 am on the 1st Sunday of every month. When I attend I see members and friends of this congregation who I almost never see at a Duluth UU gathering. Apparently they are not finding what they need in our church (or are finding too much that they don't like or need).
In his sermon, Reyka states that the average stay within the UU church is about 5 years, and compared the UU church to a train station, a place to be between where you're leaving from and where you're going to. I have often used a similar analogy, of the UU church as a "halfway house for religion addicts". (Well, I am still in the train station after 25 years [now 35 and counting], so I guess I either haven't yet found the right train out, or I still enjoy an occasional religious fix. Or maybe I just enjoy the stimulation of a train station.)
To sum up my personal perspective on Humanism, and its relation to Unitarian Universalism; I prefer to call humanism a philosophy of life, not a religion, so I disagree with the religious humanists on that point. However I find The Humanist (published by the American Humanist Association) and Free Inquiry (published by the Council for Secular Humanism) to be generally much more interesting and stimulating than the journal of the UUA (the UU World). And even though the AHA, at least [and also the Council for Secular Humanism], attempts to provide some of the support functions of a church; such as Humanist Counselors who fill the role of minister or pastor; and by providing secular versions of wedding services and funeral services [but which is generally available only in large metropolitan areas]; it seems to me to lack the warmth and support of a religious group - which is very important to have when you really need it. And religious education, which is needed, if for no other reason, to understand those who are religious, is not even considered, to my knowledge, in any humanist group. Maybe there are some such independent humanist organizations; but my impression is that where they exist, they tend to be affiliated with the UUs (such as the First Unitarian Society in Minneapolis, which is strongly humanistic, and whose [former] minister Khoran Arisian, remember, was a signer of Humanist Manifesto II). And if you want to be sure that the support of a church is there when you really need it, you have to support it when maybe you don't need it as much.
Some of my humanist and free-thinker friends prefer to reject religion altogether. Personally, I believe that religion and religious institutions play a vital role in society, and to some degree, at least, in my life. I still seem to need, or at least enjoy, an occasional religious fix, and I especially appreciate the beautiful music that religion has inspired. [The magnificent pipe organ at Pilgrim Congregational sends chills of pleasure up my spine.] Although there is considerable overlap, I don't have any great problem with keeping my philosophy of life (Humanism) and my religion (Unitarian Universalism) separate, just as I don't have any problem keeping my political philosophy separate from my religion. In fact, trouble arises when the latter two are mixed.
I have barely been able to scratch the surface of what humanism is about during this presentation. But if I were to sum it up in one sentence, I would choose this one from the back of the AHA card that I carry in my wallet (wallet atheology?). It says "Humanism is free from any belief in the supernatural and is dedicated to the search for meaning and values for individuals on this earth thru reliance on intelligence and the scientific method, democracy, and social sympathy." If you would like to explore it in more depth, feel free to talk to me at any time.